9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings before the CIT(A). Assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. - I.T.A. No. 639/Asr/2017 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2021 - Laliet Kumar, Member (J) And Dr. M.L. Meena, Member (A) For the Appellant : Ashwani Kalia, CA For the Respondents : S.M. Surendra Nath, DR ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.05.2017 passed by the CIT(A), 1 Amritsar. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the ld. CIT(A)-I, Amritsar has erred in law and on facts in holding that reopening of assessment u/s. 148 was rightly made. 2. That the ld. CIT(A)-I, Amritsar has erred in law and on facts in holding that AO was rightly initiating the provisions of section 148 on the basis of audit objection completely ignoring the fact that the AO included the Pr. CIT-I, Amritsar in his allocated report to the CIT (Audit) that audit objection on the basis of which provision of section 148 were initiated at no locus standee since it was case of only clerical error in online filing of ITR 5 having no bearing on the returned income and assessed income. 3. That the ld. CIT(A)-I, Amritsar has erred in law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of audit objection. Further as per Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Income Tax vs. P.V.S. Beedies it was held that the reopening of the case u/s. 148 may be done on the basis of any information. The action of the AO is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. 1999 237 ITR 13 SC held in favour of revenue on the issue of reopening on the basis of audit objection. Action of the AO is further supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L T (2017) 79 Taxman 267 (SC) as there was no direction from the audit party to reopen the case. Audit party only revealed the escapement of income from assessment and AO has taken action on this. In view of the above, these grounds are dismissed. Ground No. 2:- Assessee did not submit any evidence of capital during the course of assessment proceedings, except submitting a letter that the same was explained during the course of regular assessment proceedings. He did not bring any evidence on record regarding source of capital, genuineness of the same and bonafide explanation. In view of above th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R.S. Residency (Branch office). Separate Balance Sheets Profit Loss A/c of the two units are prepared and they are duly audited. Copies of Balance Sheet Profit Loss A/c of two units were filed before AO CIT(A) and they are placed at page 49 to 52 of the Paper Book. 7. It was further explained that ₹ 1,26,67,216 is the Inter Branch Balance appearing on the Assets side of Balance Sheet of R.S. Builders against the name of Branch office R.S. Residency duly highlighted. The same amount is appearing on the Liability side of Balance Sheet of R.S. Residency under the head R.S. Builders (Head Office) and duly highlighted. 8. Actually, while filling up the e-return Form 5 the figures of two Balance Sheet and Profit Loss A/c are required to be consolidated and only consolidated figures are to be given and not unit wise. 9. And while consolidating the two Balance Sheets the Inter Branch Balances appearing on the contra side of each Balance Sheet have to be squared up against each other. 10. On the Liability side of Balance Sheet under the head Capital of Partners only the actual amount of capital of partner as per Balance Sheet of Head Office amountin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 148 were initiated only under the pressure of audit wing. There was no independent application of mind by AO but the proceedings u/s. 148 was initiated under the persistent pressure of audit wing. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the documents filed on record. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of ₹ 1,41,17,217/- in absolutely summary manner by simply stating that the assessee did not submit any evidence as regard to addition of capital during the course of assessment proceedings. 9. From the impugned order it is evident that it 3 line order passed in casual manner with total disregard to the facts of the case and the written submissions filed before CIT(A) along with all details of accounts and evidences by the assessee. Copy of the written submissions alongwith supporting evidences filed before CIT(A) filed before us are placed on record. 10. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee had filed a letter dated 12.11.2015, explaining in depth that the addition to capital was only ₹ 1450000 and it was due to a clerical error in the return of income e-filed where in the Inter Branch Balance of ₹ 12667216 was inadver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
